Editorial Guidelines

The Digital Weekly publishes original journalism produced by a professional newsroom following established editorial standards. These guidelines describe how we report, edit, source, and verify the stories we publish. They are the foundation of our relationship with readers, and they are public so readers can hold us accountable.

This document is reviewed annually and updated as standards evolve. Material changes are flagged in The Weekly Brief. The “last updated” date is shown at the top of this page.

Editorial independence and the wall between business and editorial

The Digital Weekly’s editorial decisions are made by our editorial team, and only our editorial team. No advertiser, sponsor, partner, source, financial backer, or board member has the right to review, edit, or approve stories prior to publication. Sponsors and advertisers do not see editorial coverage before it goes live, do not influence editorial calendars, and do not have approval rights over headlines.

Editorial and business operations are organisationally separate. The Editor-in-Chief reports independently of the commercial leadership. Editorial hiring, performance review, and compensation are decoupled from advertising relationships. Editors are evaluated on editorial quality — not on revenue impact.

This independence is enforced through:

• A documented separation between the editorial and commercial reporting lines
• An advertiser blacklist of any party that has attempted improper influence
• Anonymous reporting channels for staff who suspect editorial interference
• Annual review of these guidelines, published publicly

Accuracy and fact-checking

Every story published on The Digital Weekly is fact-checked before publication. The depth of the check scales with the stakes of the story.

Routine news (under 600 words, day-of reporting)

The section editor performs a verification pass: factual claims checked against primary sources, quotes confirmed against transcripts, links to source documents tested, and numbers verified against original data. For breaking news on a tight deadline, this is an abbreviated check at first publication, with a more thorough verification in a subsequent update within 24 hours.

Features and analysis (600–2,500 words)

A senior editor reviews the full piece for structural integrity, the reporter’s notes, and the claims against the sources. We use a structured fact-check template that lists every assertion and the evidence behind it.

Investigations and long-form (2,500+ words)

A dedicated editor independently verifies every factual claim. Quotes are checked against recordings. Documents are read end-to-end. When the story makes allegations against named individuals or institutions, those subjects are given an opportunity to respond before publication, on a timeline appropriate to the story.

What we treat as a primary source

• Documents — court filings, regulatory disclosures, financial statements, contracts, leaked materials whose provenance we can verify
• On-the-record interviews with named sources who confirm specific claims
• First-hand observation by our reporters of an event, location, or process
• Multiple corroborating sources for claims based on confidential information

We do not treat the following as primary sources without further verification: press releases, official statements, anonymous social media accounts, AI-generated summaries, or aggregator reports.

Sources and sourcing

We prefer on-the-record sources. The reader benefits from knowing who is making each claim. On-the-record sourcing is also the most accountable for the source: they can be questioned, fact-checked, and held to their statements.

Anonymous sources — when we use them

We grant anonymity only when all four of the following are true:

1. The source faces a credible risk of professional, legal, or physical retaliation if named
2. The information is materially in the public interest and not otherwise obtainable
3. The source’s identity, motivation, and access to the information are known to the reporter and at least one editor
4. We can disclose enough about the source’s position to allow readers to evaluate the credibility of the claim

We disclose what we can about an anonymous source: their type of role (e.g., “a former engineer at the company”), their access to the information (“a person who reviewed the meeting notes”), and the relationship to the events being described (“a former colleague of the executive in question”).

Anonymous sources — what we will not do

• Publish anonymous personal attacks against named individuals
• Use anonymous quotes to express opinions when a named source could be found
• Grant anonymity to spokespeople, public relations representatives, or any source whose job is to speak publicly on behalf of an institution — they go on the record or they don’t get quoted
• Promise anonymity to a source whose claim we cannot corroborate independently

Source agreements before reporting

We negotiate sourcing terms before an interview begins, not afterward. The standard categories are:

• On the record — quotable by name
• On background — quotable but attributed to a category (e.g., “a senior official”)
• Deep background — usable as context, not quotable
• Off the record — not for publication in any form

We honor agreements made in good faith. We do not retroactively change terms.

Confidential sources and legal protection

We respect confidentiality agreements with sources. In the event of legal demand for source identification, we will resist disclosure through every available legal channel. Our legal-defence policy is documented and reviewed annually.

Conflicts of interest

Reporters and editors disclose financial holdings, family relationships, prior employment, and personal connections that could create the appearance or reality of a conflict with stories they work on. Conflicts are resolved by reassignment, recusal, or — when neither is possible — explicit disclosure within the story.

Specific rules

• Reporters covering markets do not trade individual securities they cover. This includes stocks, options, cryptocurrencies, and derivatives related to companies they report on.
• Reporters do not own equity in private companies they cover (excluding broadly-held index funds).
• Reporters disclose immediate-family employment at companies they cover.
• Reporters disclose paid speaking engagements, consulting arrangements, and outside writing.
• Editors recuse themselves from assigning or editing stories about former employers within two years of departure.

When disclosure is the right answer

Some conflicts cannot be eliminated — for instance, a beat reporter covering an industry where their spouse works. In those cases, we publish a clear disclosure within the story, in the byline footer, formatted: “Reporter discloses that [specific relationship].”

Sponsored content

Any sponsored or paid content on The Digital Weekly is clearly labelled with all of the following:

• Sponsored tag at the top of the story, visible above the headline
• “sponsored” suffix in the URL slug
• Disclosure block below the title explaining the relationship
• Distinct visual styling from editorial content
• Sponsored attribution in social media shares

Sponsored content is produced separately from editorial. It is not promoted through editorial channels (newsletter, featured-story slots, social-media editorial accounts). Editorial and sponsored content are organised under different content types in our CMS so they cannot be confused.

What we won’t accept as sponsored content

• Articles designed to look like editorial coverage of a topic
• Content from industries where sponsorship creates outsized harm: tobacco, payday lending, gambling, weapons, dietary supplements making medical claims
• Articles that mention competitor brands by name to denigrate them

Artificial intelligence policy

We do not publish AI-generated articles under reporter bylines. Every story attributed to a person was researched and written by that person.

Where AI assistance is permitted

• Transcription of recorded interviews (reporter reviews and corrects)
• Translation of foreign-language source material (reviewed by a human reader fluent in the source language)
• Summarisation of long documents for reporter review (not for publication)
• Copy-edit suggestions on a reporter’s draft (the reporter decides what to accept)
• Illustrative images for opinion or feature pieces, clearly labelled as AI-generated

Where AI is never used

• Composing first drafts of reported stories
• Generating quotes, characters, or anecdotes
• Creating news photographs or photo-realistic images representing real events
• Selecting which stories to publish
• Assigning bylines to humans for content the human did not write

Disclosure

When AI assistance materially affects the content (translated quotes, AI-generated illustrative images), we disclose this within the story.

Headlines, captions, and social-media promotion

Headlines must accurately reflect the substance of the story. We avoid:

• Clickbait phrasings (“You won’t believe what happened next”)
• Cliffhangers that misrepresent the conclusion of the article
• Numerical claims that aren’t supported by the reporting
• Headlines that imply a stronger claim than the story actually makes

Social-media promotion uses the same headline standards as the on-site headline. Promotional text added in social posts is held to the same accuracy bar as headlines.

Photographs and images

News photographs come from credentialed photo agencies, our own photographers, or contributors with proper rights. We do not manipulate news photographs beyond standard color correction and cropping. Caption text identifies the photographer or source and explains what the image depicts.

Illustrative images for opinion or feature pieces may be commissioned illustrations, stock photos, or AI-generated images. AI-generated images are labelled Illustration by AI in the caption.

Quotes and attribution

• Direct quotes (in quotation marks) are verbatim from the source, with the exception of removing verbal fillers (“um,” “you know”) and breaking sentence fragments into readable units.
• Significant edits to quotes (paraphrasing, condensing) require either paraphrase (“she said the company was struggling”) or source approval of the consolidated quote.
• We do not invent quotes, composite quotes from multiple statements, or attribute statements the source did not make.

Numbers, data, and statistics

Numerical claims are sourced to a specific document or dataset, linked when public. We round consistently and indicate when a number is an estimate, projection, or modelled output. We distinguish between revenue and bookings, ARR and run-rate, GAAP and adjusted figures.

When a statistic is provided by an interested party (a company quoting its own metrics, a lobbying group citing favorable research), we say so.

Reviews and criticism

Reviews of products, films, books, or services are based on first-hand experience by the reviewer. Reviewers disclose any complimentary access provided (advance screenings, review copies, product samples). Affiliate relationships, if any, are disclosed within the review.

Opinion vs. reporting

Opinion content is labelled Opinion at the top of the page and in the URL. Opinion authors are introduced with a bio that establishes their standing to opine. Reporting and opinion are separated by design — readers can tell which they’re reading.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is a firing offense for staff and ends a relationship with contributors. Every story published is original to The Digital Weekly. When we report on work that originated elsewhere, we credit the original publication prominently in the text and link to the original.

This applies to:

• Direct quotation without attribution
• Paraphrasing another publication’s reporting without credit
• Lifting structural elements (story angle, sequencing of facts) without credit
• Self-plagiarism (republishing a writer’s own prior work without acknowledgement)

Pre-publication review

We do not give sources, advertisers, or PR representatives the right to review stories before publication. The narrow exceptions are:

• Reading specific quotes back to a source for accuracy (not for approval)
• Legal review for stories involving novel libel risk
• Sensitive-source verification where we share excerpts to confirm we’ve understood a leaked document correctly

None of these exceptions includes giving the source veto power over content.

Corrections

When we make a mistake, we correct it. See our corrections policy for the full process.

Reader engagement

We welcome and respond to reader correspondence — tips, corrections, additions, and feedback. We do not silently delete critical reader emails or block readers for disagreement. We track patterns in reader feedback as an editorial signal.

Policy maintenance

These guidelines are reviewed annually by the Editor-in-Chief and senior editors. Material changes are announced in The Weekly Brief and noted with a revision date at the top of this page. Comments, suggestions, or substantive critiques of this policy can be sent to editors@thedigitalweekly.com.